- law dawg
- 84 Comments
- 3010 Views
- The Tropicana went out with a bang. [8NewsNow; News3LV; RJ]
- Stadium Authority confident A’s, Fisher can pay for LV ballpark after financial review. [RJ]
- AG Ford says state’s ghost gun law to remain in place following order. [Fox5Vegas]
- Meanwhile, U.S. Supreme Court considers Biden administration regulation of ghost guns. [Nevada Current]
- What else is happening out there today?
What part of “shall not be infringed” is it so hard for marxists to comprehend. “Ghost guns” are no different from any other firearm. And are absolutely constitutional.
What part of “well regulated” don’t you understand? Why do you fail to understand that NO right under the Constitution is absolute, except apparently gun rights?
Has a gun law ever once stopped a criminal? Of course not. Not once in the history of mankind.
That is THE reason, I say, to repeal EVERY SINGLE LAW ON THE BOOKS. Period, full stop. Not once has a law ever stopped a single person from breaking it. Not once. Every law is broken by someone, and that is the single most logical reason to put an end to laws.
I’m sure this made sense to you when you typed it. The difference here is that criminalizing guns takes away my ability to defend myself unless I want to break the law. A law day on insider trading doesn’t prevent me from buying stocks. A law against drunk driving allows me to drive sober. A gun law prevents me from defending myself. See the difference.
“Criminalizing guns” =/= “Regulating firearms”.
I am pretty sure that the Constitution does NOT discuss regulating firearms.
“Shall not be infringed”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You guys always forget the first part of the sentence.
If you outlaw guns then only OUTLAWS will have them.
Correct – ban a behavior like drunk driving, not access to something that can be used. Look at England few guns many stabbings. Outlaw knives and people will use skillets.
Great Britain has a murder rate of 9.9 per million in 2023/2024. United States had a murder rate of 6.3 per 100,000 or 63 per million in 2023.
Yes, thanks to cities like Chicago and Detroit
BTW, these two cities have the most strict gun laws, and the highest murder rates.
Nope:
1. New Orleans
2. St. Louis
3. Baltimore
4. Philadelphia
5. Memphis
6. Birmingham
7. Kansas City
8. Wash DC
9. Milwaukee
10. Norfolk
Source: https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-have-the-highest-murder-rates/
@12:36.
Assume the 63/M is accurate, but murder by gun (as opposed to murder by other means) is about 80% of that number, or approx. 50.5.
Just say’in. If your going to throw shade, get the numbers right.
I so terrified that my child will be randomly killed a school skillet rampage.
So trite
She didn’t go to law school.
They like to ignore the “well regulated” part just like they like to ignore the establishment clause. Cultists every one.
I don’t think those things mean what you think they mean.
Again, do some fucking research.
You know nothing Jon Snow. Do some research.
I feel the safest when everyone is armed seriously. In Vegas people pop off like crazy. I’ve lived in 2 hunting communities and in both even people mad in traffic or at a bar, they just don’t start trouble. They know EVERYONE is armed and it tends to simmer folks down.
I actually feel safest when vacationing in other countries. I genuinely don’t feel the need to be on high alert all the time. Turning on the TV of a hotel room in a foreign country and watching international news cover another mass shooting back in the U.S. underscores the absolute absurdity/insanity of it all.
I took my grandson to a gun range. He commented that everyone there was so polite.
Oh please, tell us how requiring a serial number on a weapon is infringing your right to bear arms.
Well, it’s infringing on my right to own a gun that doesn’t have a serial number.
Who told you you have a right to own a gun without a serial number?
What the heck is the point of a serial number? So the government can track all the guns? Were guns commonly serialized at the time of the constitution? No.
>Were guns commonly serialized at the time of the constitution?
Ok deal. You can only own guns that were in existence at the time the bill of rights was passed.
11:11 you’re missing the point. At the time of the bill of rights, the people had access to the same firearms as any military force in the world had at the time. So by your logic we should be able to own fully automatic machine guns. Deal.
Really? Everybody had a 10 Pounder Parrot Rifle out in the barn?
What’s this about pounding the parrot in the barn? Is there a historical tradition for that?
They are missing the point on purpose. This 🤡 just trolls this blog all day and does no work.
Shall not be infringed.
Yes. Shall not be infringed.
Well that argument spits in the face of what most of the 2A are arguing which is that ghost guns so long as constituent parts are not actually guns and cannot be regulated like guns.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” – Karl Marx “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League.”
Are you saying the founders were the real Marxists all along?
… and Ronald Reagan, neoliberal capitalist superman, signed stricter gun laws into effect when he was governor of California. so yes I guess the Marxists are the genuine defenders of the Second Amendment.
I mean, you can thank the armed labor revolts in the 1920s and 30s for your current right to have Sundays off to watch the NFL.
T-minus 27 days #bringbackthecivilbench
Don’t leave me out. I want to be in on everything. What does this mean?
It means vote for competent, experienced civil attorneys vying to be judge in Dept. 14 & 27.
Thank you.
can someone link to the State Bar decision recently about flat fees?
It was linked a couple days ago on this blog, Sull something
You know what’s funny? It’s actually a NV Sup Ct decision but they rubber stamp the bar stuff so much everyone knows what you mean when u say bar decision hahaha
they actually overturned the finding of the panel. And made things way worse for flat fee attorneys
Also because the attorney called it a “flat fee” when it was obvious that it was a retainer to be billed against.
The best way to comply with the Bar/Supreme Court’s interpretation of the NRPC is to just not do flat fees. There are too many ways for things to go sideways. Flat fees are all downside, no upside.
I take it you’ve never done criminal law. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t do flat fee for criminal.
What’s the point now? The court was clear: it’s an advance, and gets put into the trust account. You can’t take it out of the trust account until you’ve earned it. To show that it’s been earned, you have to do…. something. But don’t do the wrong thing, or else they’ll feed you to Hooge. Set milestones? Fine. Front load the milestones, and not so fine.
Some criminal cases are done hourly, but the majority in state court are done as a flat fee. If all criminal becomes hourly billing, then the unintended consequence will be the PD’s office being regularly appointed halfway through cases when the retainer runs out. I think a rehearing would be warranted with Amicus from NACJ, but, someone missed the deadline for that.
Almost 100% of poor family law cases when against LACSN were flat fee. Now? Fuck em.
“Someone” sure did now all will pay the price!
11:19 AM here. I haven’t done criminal law. I have no doubt that flat fees are very common in criminal law. That ubiquity, however, does not overcome the fact that (1) a flat fee is really just a capped hourly retainer; (2) if you don’t set the “milestones” the right way, you’ll be subject to discipline. So what is it about criminal law that is exempt from these problems?
TO RECAP:
FLAT DOWNSIDES: (1) You have to essentially bill it hourly, and if you go beyond the flat fee, you get work for free!; (2) If you set the “milestones” in a way that the Bar does not like you will get disciplined; (3) if you work efficiently and hourly billing is less than the flat fee, your windfall could be the basis of discipline as an unreasonable fee.
FLAT UPSIDES: None.
For a small firm the economic upside was that one could take enough (they are plentiful) that it even out as some went to trial while others settled etc to make it possible to keep offering it to the poor. Now we have to assess every case in its own and that eliminates the offsets and so we can’t offer it anymore. Think LACSN and OBC cabal etc.
This is (yet another) case that illustrates that our current NSC is simply out of touch with the reality of representing everyday people as a solo or small-firm lawyer. You’ve got some former corporate and insurance lawyers, a couple of former prosecutors, and only one (Stiglich) who I think has some experience representing regular people on a regular basis. I’m not questioning anyone’s intellect or integrity, only that I think they lack perspective. I see lots of ivory-tower pontificating here that is completely divorced from reality.
THIS is the blind spot. Basically, flat fees allowed practitioners to create a risk pool that extended access to representation to people on the economic margin. Now, we cannot pool risk anymore. Each flat fee case is analyzed under the NRPC in total isolation. You have two cases, Case A and Case B for a $10,000.00 flat fee. Case A you complete in $7000 of billing time. Case B takes you $13000 of billing time. You can’t pay yourself until its justified, and you should always err on the side of waiting. So you wait until its done. Case A is unethical because you received an unreasonable fee – $10,000 for $7,000 of work. Case B is fine, but you just took a $3,000.00 loss. The end result is that the lawyer is not disincentivized from taking both clients. Client A and Client B will need to find another lawyer or a way to fund their litigation hourly, with the associated uncertainty as to cost.
Yes. This. Exactly. One can say the same of contingency fees. I’ve had a few where I made $1k or more per hour, a whole bunch that probably came out to $200-400, a few that were minimum wage, and a few where I made zero.
Funny, the ABA and others touted and encourage flat fee billing model benefiting the consumer client.
I find it odd that our Supreme Court does not understand flat fee arrangements. If I am really efficient, I earn a higher fee. If I am inefficient, then I lose money on the case. In a flat fee, the lawyer bets on his/her knowledge and skill.
When people speak of milestones, you are talking about an advance fee deposit, to be worked off in increments.
It is used in many states in the US.
In re Discipline of Sull, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Aug. 22, 2024), available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18293004831978803250&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29.
Or https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=66810&csIID=66810&deLinkID=960351&onBaseDocumentNumber=24-30045 if you want the official slip opinion.
Who keeps a fire arm in their office? If so, do you allow other employees to keep firearms? What are your thoughts regarding firearms in the office? How has your policy on firearms in the office changed since the Houston/Prince Murder Suicide?
I do. I always have. It’s in a safe on my desk.
I have carried concealed on my hip or under my arm since 2003. I carry every day.
I cannot count the times (dozens) that I had to turn around on the RJC steps because I forgot to leave it in my vehicle.
I haven’t done it with a gun, but I’ve hidden a pocketknife in the bushes outside the RJC a few times.
Rant Part Deux: The Rantening
Once again a post on the board shamed the IT folks at the Supreme Court to make their website functional last week, only to see it break down again early this week. Today it is just completely broken. It is beyond the point of embarrassing. Beyond even incompetence.
Wynn Casino sued for not figuring out man was gambling with ill-gotten money. We are through the looking glass.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/lawsuit-wynn-resorts-failed-to-prevent-man-from-gambling-millions-in-loaned-funds-3185656/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=latest&utm_source=homepage&utm_term=Lawsuit%3A%20Wynn%20Resorts%20failed%20to%20prevent%20man%20from%20gambling%20millions%20in%20loaned%20funds
Is Plaintiffs counsel out of state? Will they mispronounce Nevada in front of the jury?
Suit was filed in Toronto
I assume there’s some basis for personal jx on Wynn in Canada? Any Canada CivPro experts want to opine?
So they’ll pronounce it “Nevad, eh.”
Do attorneys wear wigs and robes?
Lemme guess: This is one of those “negligence ” complaints that never mention the word “duty”.
Guns do not make anyone safer, ever. Just because you “feel” safe does not mean you are. I routinely walk into court with the “feeling” that opposing counsel is an asshole. Does that mean you’re all assholes? Probably, but that’s not the point. Point is, you all probably don’t “feel” like assholes. Neither your feelings nor mine are relevant. The facts are that guns do not ever make anyone safer. I’m not going to do the leg work for you. Go read the statistics and studies on your own.
Speaking of feelings. Floridians elected a high heeled nut job who “felt” like climate change should be removed from all text books. Funny how no one informed the hurricanes about the Floridians feelings. Ha!
I sure felt safer after someone tried to break in my front door and while they were working in my screen porch door I opened the inside door and quietly looked at them with my shot gun. Weird thing is they didn’t run but kinda looked at me and walked away. Anyway I think I was safer.
My gosh you must be a joy to argue against in court. Your logic and analysis are just ridiculous nonsense. Actually, I am guessing you never get anywhere near an actual courtroom or actual attorneys.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but me. I feel safer when I am out with my wife and kids, walking through the streets in this city, or shopping, wearing a concealed weapon. Does it make me actually safer – YES. I am well trained and well versed in handling a fire arm. I am a frequent shooter and take this amazing responsibility very seriously and somberly. I practice, I train and I am extremely comfortable with holding and if need be using a weapon to defend my family. I give myself a much better odds of surviving an attack on a street having a weapon that I know how to use well. So yes, that makes me feel safer. Further, I assume the 4:22 poster does not carry or own a firearm, but for those that do, you know that it causes massive de-escalation of any potential conflict. If you know you are armed and prepared to use a weapon to take a life, you do everything in your power not to, you step back, you deescalate, you walk away, simply because you know you have the power in the struggle and have great desire not to use that power.
So yes, in short, if you are not a hoodlum and take your responsibility seriously, train and know what you are doing, carrying a weapon on you, especially in situations where you can be called upon to protect your family, makes you feel SIGNIFICANTLY safer, and in fact you are significantly safer.
And if we are being completely honest, your jab as to the “high heeled nut job” not recognizing climate change as being responsible for hurricanes is obviously done without any factual basis or studying the topic. In fact, if you actually look at the data, it is clear that Hurricanes that reach U.S. land are happening about as often as they did 100 years ago, despite the allegations of “climate change” causing them to increase. Having said that, I am not a climate change denier, but facts are facts.
Great. You underwent training, a background check and qualification with the weapon before getting your CCW. I don’t think you’re making the point you think you’re making.
4:12pm, provide us the crime stats of legal CCW holders.
The point was that nobody feels safer with a gun. I think you conceded that if you went through what I went through and carried a concealed weapon in public with your family, you too would feel safer. So the premise of the original poster is simply incorrect. Regular folks that get licensed and train to carry a weapon and are serious about their responsibilities DO feel safer.
1924 Hurricane season: 1st recorded Cat 5, 11 total storms, with 5 developing into hurricanes, 2 of which were major (Cat 3+).
2024 Hurricane season, which doesn’t end for another 6 weeks: 13 storms, 9 hurricanes, 4 major.
But go on about how facts are facts.
Yup. All the people on the cusp get cut, go to PD, PD gets overwhelmed with extra work, PD can’t keep up, PD makes mistakes, County gets sued for millions (again)